| Course | HA515 Leadership and Management in Health Care |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Leadership theory comparison |
| Length | About 850 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Master of Health Administration (MHA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HA515 Unit 2
Cart-Fill Errors and a Manager From Outside: A Leadership Theory Comparison Asking What a Trait Account, the Michigan Studies' Employee-Centered Supervision and Burns's Transactional and Transforming Leadership Would Each Advise a New Inpatient Pharmacy Operations Manager
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HA515: Leadership and Management in Health Care
Unit 2 Leadership Theory Comparison
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The pharmacy, the staff and every figure are composite and bracketed; the comparison is a course exercise, not a performance review of real people.
The Case
The inpatient pharmacy employs [24] technicians across three shifts who fill unit-dose medication carts for [11] nursing units. Pharmacists check every cart before delivery. Over the last quarter, the check caught errors in about [3.2] of every 100 doses, mostly wrong strength and missing doses, against a goal of [1.0]. Technician turnover is near [40] percent a year. The new manager, hired from another health system, has a strong technical background and no history with the staff.
Theory 1: Traits
What it claims: certain personal characteristics make people more likely to emerge as leaders and to be seen as effective. Evidence: a large review found that personality traits, especially extraversion, conscientiousness and openness, were related to both leader emergence and perceived effectiveness, though the relationships were modest (Judge et al., 2002). What it would advise: very little that the manager can act on. A trait account explains who gets chosen as a leader more than what a leader should do on Monday. Limits: traits are hard to change, and the theory ignores the situation, here an understaffed department with high turnover.
Theory 2: Employee-Centered Supervision
What it claims: the Michigan studies, summarized by Likert, found that supervisors in higher-producing units tended to focus on their employees as people, supporting them and involving them, rather than focusing only on tasks and pressure for output (Likert, 1961). Evidence: the original studies were mostly correlational field studies in offices and factories; later research supports the value of considerate supervision for satisfaction, with weaker links to performance. What it would advise: spend the first month listening to technicians on every shift, learn why people leave and involve technicians in redesigning the fill process. Limits: support alone may not reduce errors if the process itself is flawed. Only one of the three theories tells the new manager what to do in the first week, and it starts with listening rather than with the error rate.
Theory 3: Transactional and Transforming Leadership
What it claims: Burns distinguished transactional leadership, exchanges of rewards for performance, from transforming leadership, which raises followers' motivation and sense of purpose (Burns, 1978). Evidence: a meta-analysis found both transformational leadership and contingent reward, a form of transactional leadership, related to follower satisfaction and leader effectiveness, with contingent reward performing nearly as well in some settings (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). What it would advise: combine clear expectations and recognition for accurate fills with a purpose technicians can believe in, that every cart reaches a patient. Limits: transforming leadership takes time and trust a new outsider does not yet have.
Comparing the Advice
1. Usefulness now: Michigan highest, transactional second, trait lowest.
2. Fit with the turnover problem: Michigan and transforming leadership both address why people leave.
3. Fit with the error problem: transactional clarity helps immediately, by setting a standard and recognizing it.
4. Evidence: strongest for transformational and contingent reward combined.
A Combined Approach
The manager should start with employee-centered listening, add transactional clarity about the error standard and recognition for accuracy within the first month and build a transforming purpose over the year. Trait theory adds a caution: the manager's own conscientiousness, a strength, may lead her to fix the process alone rather than with the technicians.
The First Ninety Days Under the Combined Approach
Days 1 to 30: meet every technician on every shift; ask what makes fills go wrong and why people have left; watch the fill process on nights, when most errors occur. Days 31 to 60: with two technicians from each shift, redesign the fill check for high-risk drugs; set a shared error standard; begin weekly recognition for shifts that meet it. Days 61 to 90: report results to the whole team, tie the work to patient stories from pharmacists' checks and ask technicians to lead the next improvement.
What the Technicians Said
Early conversations suggest the theories' emphases are well placed. Night technicians described filling carts alone with frequent interruptions from phone calls about missing doses. Several said previous managers spoke to them only about errors. One said she would stay if someone asked her opinion about the work. Each comment points to employee-centered supervision first and clear recognition second.
Limits
The theories were developed in different eras and settings; none was designed for pharmacy operations. The comparison is qualitative. The error figures cover one quarter and may shift with census, staffing and new drugs on formulary.
Conclusion
The three theories offer different value. The trait account explains selection, the Michigan studies tell the manager where to begin, and Burns explains how to move from clear expectations to shared purpose.
References
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. McGraw-Hill.
HA515 Unit 2 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 2 usually asks students to compare several leadership theories by applying each to the same health care situation. Instructions commonly require explaining each theory, its evidence, what it would recommend and its limits, then comparing them and drawing a conclusion. Many instructors want classic theories alongside newer research. Expect to cite each theory's origin and at least one empirical study in APA style, explain what kind of evidence supports it, keep the department and people composite and use parallel headings so the comparison is fair. A comparison that ends with a practical combined approach, and sequences it over the manager's first months, shows the theories can be used rather than only described.
Inside the HA515 Unit 2 example
The sample describes the pharmacy case, with a margin note on parallel structure. Each theory gets the same four headings. The trait section cites a review of personality and leadership. The Michigan section cites Likert's account of employee-centered supervision, and the highlighted sentence says only one theory tells the manager what to do in the first week. Burns's section cites a meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership, with a margin note on fair judging. A comparison on four dimensions, a combined approach that starts with listening, a ninety-day timeline with a third note, night technicians' comments about interruptions, limits and a conclusion follow. Each section is the same length.
Where the points sit in the HA515 Unit 2 rubric
Theory comparison rubrics in HA 515 tend to award points for explaining theories accurately, presenting evidence, applying each to the case, comparing them fairly, reaching a conclusion, citing sources and organizing clearly. Explanation points depend on correct claims and authors. Evidence points go to empirical support and its limits. Application points reward concrete advice for the case. Comparison points require the same questions asked of each theory. Conclusion points go to a reasoned verdict or synthesis. Source points need original and empirical sources. Comparisons that turn a synthesis into a sequenced plan for the manager are usually graded highest, since they prove the theories can guide real decisions in the first months.
Common HA515 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Theory comparisons often lose points by describing each theory in its own terms, so the reader cannot compare them. Another gap is applying theories only in general, without concrete advice for the case. Some papers dismiss older theories without crediting what their evidence shows. Others end without a conclusion. Use parallel headings, give each theory's evidence, ask what it would advise in this department this month and compare on the same dimensions. Then combine the useful parts into a plan. Comments from staff in the case, even composite ones, help test whether the advice fits the real problem. Note the limits of applying theories from other eras and industries.
Get an HA515 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Name the theories your section lists for Unit 2, describe a department you know or rely on the case provided, and attach the rubric. The free first comparison, ready in 24-48h, runs each theory through identical questions about that department, weighs the evidence behind each, and closes on a choice it defends. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HA515 papers and MHA samples
- HA515 Unit 1: Leading Versus Managing Analysis
- HA515 Unit 3: Planning and Organizing Exercise
- HA515 Unit 4: Management Decision Case
- HA515 Unit 5: Strategic Direction Paper
- HA515 Unit 6: Influence and Communication Analysis
- HA515 Unit 7: Delegation and Accountability Case
- HA515 Unit 8: Ethical Governance Paper
- HA515 Unit 9: Cross-department Change Plan
- HA515 Unit 10: Leadership Development Plan
- HA520 Unit 4:
- HA510 Unit 2: Hospital Structure Comparison
- HA540 Unit 5:
HA515 Unit 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HA515 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page carries the full HA515 Unit 2 leadership theory comparison for a composite inpatient pharmacy's new manager, drawing on four references. Any department you know can be run through the same four questions.
What did the Michigan leadership studies find?
Supervisors of higher-producing groups tended to be employee-centered, supporting and involving their staff rather than focusing only on tasks.
What is the difference between transactional and transforming leadership?
Transactional leadership exchanges rewards for performance; transforming leadership raises followers' motivation and sense of purpose.
Do personality traits predict leadership?
Research finds modest links between traits such as extraversion and conscientiousness and both leader emergence and effectiveness.
How long is the HA515 Unit 2 comparison?
About five pages, with each theory answering the same four questions.